Soren Kierkegaard
On the Dedication to "That Single Individual" [Note 1]
Translated by Charles K. Bellinger
My dear, accept this dedication; it is given over, as it were, blindfolded,
but therefore undisturbed by any consideration, in sincerity. Who you are,
I know not; where you
are, I know not; what your name is, I know not. Yet you are my hope,
my joy, my pride, and my unknown honor.
It comforts me, that the right occasion is now there for you; which
I have honestly intended during my labor and in my labor. For if it were
possible that reading what I
write became worldly custom, or even to give oneself out as having
read it, in the hope of thereby winning something in the world, that then
would not be the right
occasion, since, on the contrary, misunderstanding would have triumphed,
and it would have also deceived me, if I had not striven to prevent such
a thing from
happening.
This, in part, is a possible change in me, something I even wish for,
basically a mood of soul and mind, which does not produce change by being
more than change and
therefore produces nothing less than change; it is rather an admission,
in part a thoroughly and well thought-out view of "life," of "the truth,"
and of "the way."
There is a view of life which holds that where the crowd is, the truth
is also, that it is a need in truth itself, that it must have the crowd
on its side.[Note 2] There is
another view of life; which holds that wherever the crowd is, there
is untruth, so that, for a moment to carry the matter out to its farthest
conclusion, even if every
individual possessed the truth in private, yet if they came together
into a crowd (so that "the crowd" received any decisive, voting, noisy,
audible importance), untruth
would at once be let in.[Note 3]
For "the crowd" is untruth. Eternally, godly, christianly what Paul
says is valid: "only one receives the prize," [I Cor. 9:24] not by way
of comparison, for in the
comparison "the others" are still present. That is to say, everyone
can be that one, with God's help - but only one receives the prize; again,
that is to say, everyone should
cautiously have dealings with "the others," and essentially only talk
with God and with himself - for only one receives the prize; again, that
is to say, the human being is in
kinship with, or to be a human is to be in kinship with the divinity.
The worldly, temporal, busy, socially-friendly person says this: "How unreasonable,
that only one should
receive the prize, it is far more probable that several combined receive
the prize; and if we become many, then it becomes more certain and also
easier for each
individually." Certainly, it is far more probable; and it is also true
in relation to all earthly and sensuous prizes; and it becomes the only
truth, if it is allowed to rule, for
this point of view abolishes both God and the eternal and "the human
being's" kinship with the divinity; it abolishes it or changes it into
a fable, and sets the modern (as a
matter of fact, the old heathen) in its place, so that to be a human
being is like being a specimen which belongs to a race gifted with reason,
so that the race, the species,
is higher than the individual, or so that there are only specimens,
not individuals. But the eternal, which vaults high over the temporal,
quiet as the night sky, and God in
heaven, who from this exalted state of bliss, without becoming the
least bit dizzy, looks out over these innumerable millions and knows each
single individual; he, the great
examiner, he says: only one receives the prize; that is to say, everyone
can receive it, and everyone ought to become this by oneself, but only
one receives the prize.
Where the crowd is, therefore, or where a decisive importance is attached
to the fact that there is a crowd, there no one is working, living, and
striving for the highest
end, but only for this or that earthly end; since the eternal, the
decisive, can only be worked for where there is one; and to become this
by oneself, which all can do, is to
will to allow God to help you - "the crowd" is untruth.
A crowd - not this or that, one now living or long dead, a crowd of
the lowly or of nobles, of rich or poor, etc., but in its very concept
[Note 4] - is untruth, since a crowd
either renders the single individual wholly unrepentant and irresponsible,
or weakens his responsibility by making it a fraction of his decision.
Observe, there was not a
single soldier who dared lay a hand on Caius Marius; this was the truth.
But given three or four women with the consciousness or idea of being a
crowd, with a certain
hope in the possibility that no one could definitely say who it was
or who started it: then they had the courage for it; what untruth! The
untruth is first that it is "the
crowd," which does either what only the single individual in the crowd
does, or in every case what each single individual does. For a crowd is
an abstraction, which
does not have hands; each single individual, on the other hand, normally
has two hands, and when he, as a single individual, lays his two hands
on Caius Marius, then it is
the two hands of this single individual, not after all his neighbor's,
even less - the crowd's, which has no hands. In the next place, the untruth
is that the crowd had "the
courage" for it, since never at any time was even the most cowardly
of all single individuals so cowardly, as the crowd always is. For every
single individual who
escapes into the crowd, and thus flees in cowardice from being a single
individual (who either had the courage to lay his hand on Caius Marius,
or the courage to admit
that he did not have it), contributes his share of cowardice to "the
cowardice," which is: the crowd. Take the highest, think of Christ - and
the whole human race, all
human beings, which were ever born and ever will be born; the situation
is the single individual, as an individual, in solitary surroundings alone
with him; as a single
individual he walks up to him and spits on him: the human being has
never been born and never will be, who would have the courage or the impudence
for it; this is the
truth. But since they remain in a crowd, they have the courage for
it - what frightening untruth.
The crowd is untruth. There is therefore no one who has more contempt
for what it is to be a human being than those who make it their profession
to lead the crowd.
Let someone, some individual human being, certainly, approach such
a person, what does he care about him; that is much too small a thing;
he proudly sends him away;
there must be at least a hundred. And if there are thousands, then
he bends before the crowd, he bows and scrapes; what untruth! No, when
there is an individual
human being, then one should express the truth by respecting what it
is to be a human being; and if perhaps, as one cruelly says, it was a poor,
needy human being, then
especially should one invite him into the best room, and if one has
several voices, he should use the kindest and friendliest; that is the
truth. When on the other hand it
was an assembly of thousands or more, and "the truth" became the object
of balloting, then especially one should godfearingly - if one prefers
not to repeat in silence the
Our Father: deliver us from evil - one should godfearingly express,
that a crowd, as the court of last resort, ethically and religiously, is
the untruth, whereas it is eternally
true, that everyone can be the one. This is the truth.
The crowd is untruth. Therefore was Christ crucified, because he, even
though he addressed himself to all, would not have to do with the crowd,
because he would not
in any way let a crowd help him, because he in this respect absolutely
pushed away, would not found a party, or allow balloting, but would be
what he was, the truth,
which relates itself to the single individual. And therefore everyone
who in truth will serve the truth, is eo ipso in some way or other a martyr;
if it were possible that a
human being in his mother's womb could make a decision to will to serve
"the truth" in truth, so he also is eo ipso a martyr, however his martyrdom
comes about, even
while in his mother's womb. For to win a crowd is not so great a trick;
one only needs some talent, a certain dose of untruth and a little acquaintance
with the human
passions. But no witness for the truth - alas, and every human being,
you and I, should be one - dares have dealings with a crowd. The witness
for the truth - who
naturally will have nothing to do with politics, and to the utmost
of his ability is careful not to be confused with a politician - the godfearing
work of the witness to the
truth is to have dealings with all, if possible, but always individually,
to talk with each privately, on the streets and lanes - to split up the
crowd, or to talk to it, not to form
a crowd, but so that one or another individual might go home from the
assembly and become a single individual. "A crowd," on the other hand,
when it is treated as the
court of last resort in relation to "the truth," its judgment as the
judgment, is detested by the witness to the truth, more than a virtuous
young woman detests the dance
hall. And they who address the "crowd" as the court of last resort,
he considers to be instruments of untruth. For to repeat: that which in
politics and similar domains has
its validity, sometimes wholly, sometimes in part, becomes untruth,
when it is transferred to the intellectual, spiritual, and religious domains.
And at the risk of a possibly
exaggerated caution, I add just this: by "truth" I always understand
"eternal truth." But politics and the like has nothing to do with "eternal
truth." A politics, which in the
real sense of "eternal truth" made a serious effort to bring "eternal
truth" into real life, would in the same second show itself to be in the
highest degree the most
"impolitic" thing imaginable.
The crowd is untruth. And I could weep, in every case I can learn to
long for the eternal, whenever I think about our age's misery, even compared
with the ancient
world's greatest misery, in that the daily press and anonymity make
our age even more insane with help from "the public," which is really an
abstraction, which makes a
claim to be the court of last resort in relation to "the truth"; for
assemblies which make this claim surely do not take place. That an anonymous
person, with help from the
press, day in and day out can speak however he pleases (even with respect
to the intellectual, the ethical, the religious), things which he perhaps
did not in the least have
the courage to say personally in a particular situation; every time
he opens up his gullet - one cannot call it a mouth - he can all at once
address himself to thousands
upon thousands; he can get ten thousand times ten thousand to repeat
after him - and no one has to answer for it; in ancient times the relatively
unrepentant crowd was
the almighty, but now there is the absolutely unrepentant thing: No
One, an anonymous person: the Author, an anonymous person: the Public,
sometimes even
anonymous subscribers, therefore: No One. No One! God in heaven, such
states even call themselves Christian states. One cannot say that, again
with the help of the
press, "the truth" can overcome the lie and the error. O, you who say
this, ask yourself: Do you dare to claim that human beings, in a crowd,
are just as quick to reach
for truth, which is not always palatable, as for untruth, which is
always deliciously prepared, when in addition this must be combined with
an admission that one has let
oneself be deceived! Or do you dare to claim that "the truth" is just
as quick to let itself be understood as is untruth, which requires no previous
knowledge, no schooling,
no discipline, no abstinence, no self-denial, no honest self-concern,
no patient labor! No, "the truth," which detests this untruth, the only
goal of which is to desire its
increase, is not so quick on its feet. Firstly, it cannot work through
the fantastical, which is the untruth; its communicator is only a single
individual. And its
communication relates itself once again to the single individual; for
in this view of life the single individual is precisely the truth. The
truth can neither be communicated
nor be received without being as it were before the eyes of God, nor
without God's help, nor without God being involved as the middle term,
since he is the truth. It can
therefore only be communicated by and received by "the single individual,"
which, for that matter, every single human being who lives could be: this
is the determination
of the truth in contrast to the abstract, the fantastical, impersonal,
"the crowd" - "the public," which excludes God as the middle term (for
the personal God cannot be the
middle term in an impersonal relation), and also thereby the truth,
for God is the truth and its middle term.
And to honor every individual human being, unconditionally every human
being, that is the truth and fear of God and love of "the neighbor"; but
ethico-religiously viewed,
to recognize "the crowd" as the court of last resort in relation to
"the truth," that is to deny God and cannot possibly be to love "the neighbor."
And "the neighbor" is the
absolutely true expression for human equality; if everyone in truth
loved the neighbor as himself, then would perfect human equality be unconditionally
attained; every
one who in truth loves the neighbor, expresses unconditional human
equality; every one who is really aware (even if he admits, like I, that
his effort is weak and
imperfect) that the task is to love the neighbor, he is also aware
of what human equality is. But never have I read in the Holy Scriptures
this command: You shall love
the crowd; even less: You shall, ethico-religiously, recognize in the
crowd the court of last resort in relation to "the truth." It is clear
that to love the neighbor is
self-denial, that to love the crowd or to act as if one loved it, to
make it the court of last resort for "the truth," that is the way to truly
gain power, the way to all sorts of
temporal and worldly advantage - yet it is untruth; for the crowd is
untruth.
But he who acknowledges this view, which is seldom presented (for it
often happens, that a man believes that the crowd is in untruth, but when
it, the crowd, merely
accepts his opinion en masse, then everything is all right), he admits
to himself that he is the weak and powerless one; how would a single individual
be able to stand
against the many, who have the power! And he could not then want to
get the crowd on his side to carry through the view that the crowd, ethico-religiously,
as the court
of last resort, is untruth; that would be to mock himself. But although
this view was from the first an admission of weakness and powerlessness,
and since it seems
therefore so uninviting, and is therefore heard so seldom: yet it has
the good feature, that it is fair, that it offends no one, not a single
one, that it does not distinguish
between persons, not a single one. A crowd is indeed made up of single
individuals; it must therefore be in everyone's power to become what he
is, a single individual; no
one is prevented from being a single individual, no one, unless he
prevents himself by becoming many. To become a crowd, to gather a crowd
around oneself, is on the
contrary to distinguish life from life; even the most well-meaning
one who talks about that, can easily offend a single individual. But it
is the crowd which has power,
influence, reputation, and domination - this is the distinction of
life from life, which tyrannically overlooks the single individual as the
weak and powerless one, in a
temporal-worldly way overlooks the eternal truth: the single individual.
Note The reader will recall, that this (the beginning of which is marked
by the atmosphere of its moment, when I voluntarily exposed myself to the
brutality of literary
vulgarity) was originally written in 1846, although later revised and
considerably enlarged. Existence, almighty as it is, has since that time
shed light on the proposition that the crowd, seen ethico-religiously as
the court of last resort, is untruth. Truly, I am well served by this;
I am even helped by it to better understand myself, since I will
now be understood in a completely different way than I was at the time,
when my weak, lonely voice was heard as a ridiculous exaggeration, whereas
it can now
scarcely be heard at all on account of existence's loud voice, which
says the same thing.
Notes
[Note 1] This, which is now considerably revised and enlarged, was written
and intended to accompany the dedication to "that single individual," which
is found in
"Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits." Copenhagen, Spring 1847.
back to text
[Note 2] Perhaps, however, it is right to note once and for all, that
which follows of itself and which I have never denied, that in relation
to all temporal, earthly, worldly
ends the crowd can have its validity, even its validity as a decisive
court of last resort. But I am not speaking about such things, which I
pay so little attention to. I speak
of the ethical, the ethical-religious, of "the truth," and seen ethico-religiously
the crowd is untruth, when it is taken as a valid court of last resort
for what "the truth" is.
back to text
[Note 3] Perhaps, however, it is right to note, although it seems to
me to be almost superfluous, that it naturally could not occur to me to
object to something, for example
that there is preaching, or that "the truth" is proclaimed, even though
it was to an assembly of a hundred thousand. No, but even if it were an
assembly of just ten - and if
there should be balloting, that is, if the assembly were the court
of last resort, if the crowd were the decisive factor, then there is untruth.
back to text
[Note 4] The reader will therefore recall, that here by "crowd," "the
crowd" is understood as a purely formal conceptual definition, not what
one otherwise understands by "the crowd," when it supposedly is also a
qualification, when human selfishness irreligiously divides human beings
into "the crowd" and the nobles, and so forth. God in heaven, how would
the religious arrive at such in-human equality! No, "crowd" is the number,
the numerical; a number of noblemen, millionaires, high dignitaries, etc.
- as
soon as the numerical is at work, the "crowd" is "the crowd."
Amazon.com
100 Hot Books|100
Hot CDs|Top
Electronics|Gift
Ideas|Hot
DVDs|Awards|Children's|Music